Talk:Stephen Colbert presidential campaign, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stephen Colbert presidential campaign, 2008 article.
Article policies
Stephen Colbert presidential campaign, 2008 is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.

To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Date: 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] hype

I'm not actually sure how much of the hype was from fans and how much was just engineered publicity, but for now I put the fan site that says "we did it" as a citation. Ombudstheman 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen the Character

Until there is definitive and verfiable proof that Colbert the person, and not the character is running for president then all links should go to his character sub-page. I like him, and think the whole story is funny as hell, but it is simply nothing more than an elaborate joke. I suggest we refrain from feeding it here. Arzel 02:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So far, it does seem to be the character more than the person running. I do not expect that will change, either. It is, however, somewhat difficult to separate the two as it is definitely the person who will have to file the paperwork and who will be responsible for any breaches in campaign law. That said, I agree that the link should be to the character. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Arzel, though I suspect that he will eventually end up on at least one ballot in SC (or make a serious attempt to anyway). In any event, I *highly* doubt he will ever step out of character in the context of his campaign. If he does, then the link can possibly change. · jersyko talk 02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think the whole storyline is hilarious, but it can't be taken seriously. Unless by some unforeseen twist Stephen actually comes out of character and says he's running seriously, the page should link to Stephen Colbert (character). Shoemoney2night 02:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he will even make it onto the SC ballot (other than as a write-in candidate). The FEC doesn't/won't find this nearly as hillarious as the rest of us. There appears to be ample evidence that he would have to quit his show if he indeed does formally apply for candadicy. Arzel 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, he doesn't have to quit his show. The "equal time" regulations only apply to broadcast television, not cable tv.Cylonian 22:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
According to this article, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6450_Page2.html it may not be as simple as that. Arzel 05:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not addressing this here previously - I didn't see there were two discussions about the "character" vs. "person" issue. But I don't think it's possible to distinguish the character from the person in this sense, i.e. media reports aren't going to say "his character announced it on the 17th, but now it's official". The fact that the campaign website has the very real petition for South Carolina Democrats (and a candidate must be a citizen by definition) seems like evidence enough that it's a "real" campaign, at least to me... But it's not worth arguing over. Resistance is futile. =) Luatha 02:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I do see where you're coming from - even though "Stephen Colbert" is the one running for President, it's still (potentially) Stephen Colbert's name on the ticket. Even so, I think, as an in-character stunt, this should definitely link to the character. People are taking this seriously, but even the petition can be equated to jokes like the Hungarian bridge-naming contest (albeit on a much larger scale). Shoemoney2night 03:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not needed on Wikipedia, just a gimmick, also do you see "Herbert Hoover Presidential Campaign 1928?" No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.13.103 (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of our time. If an article such as this is considered irrelevant in years to come, it will be deleted, or merged into another article. Currently, it is considered worthy of its own article. Many things come and go like this - what is important today will be looked back on as unimportant by history. mattbuck 10:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, if someone cared to create the article Herbert Hoover Presidential Campaign, 1928 it would be very useful for those wishing to study that part of history, right? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral Law

Forgive me if I seem oblivious, as I'm not American and don't really get the electoral system down there, but... Stephen's running ONLY in the South Carolina primary, right? As in, even if he wins it, he's not going to be President because he won't have won any of the other 49 primaries. Am I correct in this? Because I was thinking of it in that light, which made me realize that if it's true that the system works in such a way, he can run and campaign all he wants there and never come close to sitting in office ever. Right? And if I'm right about that, perhaps it should be in the article? Howa0082 14:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, that's how our system works. There's no reason you can't put that in the article that I can see, as you seem to have all of the facts correct. I suspect most of us think it's obvious, but if you don't put it where you see fit. Of course, don't be too surprised if someone moves/removes it, at which point visiting the talk pages again might be in order. (Hopefully, that someone would raise their objection in the talk page themselves.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Without a source, I'd remove it on original research grounds, though it's obviously correct. Like Benhocking, I think it's rather unnecessary, in any event. · jersyko talk 16:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It's unecessary to you, but to people who don't know the American electoral system and think a fake-news personality might actually get to be President, it'd be nice to know. I know far too many people who think he actually stands a chance of winning the Presidency. Howa0082 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Then feel free to add it. You can probably get by with citing this
That should satisfy Jerskyo's concern about original research. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. I tried usa.gov's online help, and they're not really helpful. Hopefully, that link illustrates the point succinctly. Howa0082 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course, it suddenly occurs to me that the site is not completely applicable here as we're talking about a United States presidential primary and not the United States presidential election. So, in reality it is a little more complicated. Technically, I believe a party can nominate whoever it feels like nominating regardless of who wins the individual state primaries (for example, Florida's state primary might very well be ignored by Democrats). Realistically, that wouldn't be a very good strategy for winning the general election. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This last comment is correct. _Technically_ a candidate need not compete in _any_ primary to be nominated. Primaries (and caucuses) send delegates to the convention, and the convention chooses the candidate. In practice, since the 1970s, delegates are pledged to candidates, and they vote predictably at the convention. Thus winning the nomination entails winning a majority of delegates. As South Carolina does not have a majority, it would not be enough. But supposing no candidate received a majority of delegates, we would have a "brokered convention," in which the delegates actually deliberate. Then state rules vary on when and how delegates can abandon their original candidate. In short, then, running only in S.C. is almost certainly not going to win Colbert the nomination, but it could. The Electoral College has nothing to do with it.Still A Student 04:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone should put that in the article, since Stephen has non-American fans who don't necessarily know anything about it. mattbuck 07:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

76.24.31.221 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC) The article states that Colbert could only be nominated if he ran as a write in candidate in other states. In view of the discussion above this is obviously incorrect.

[edit] 1,000,000 Colbert Supporters group on FaceBook

(I'm not sure where to post this. I apologize if this isn't correct either.)

Hello Mattbuck,

How do I message you back? Is this correct?

Why is the following spam? Does it need to be formatted differently?

An election is a "popular" issue (in the "of the people" sense of the word). This link demonstrates the magnitude of Colbert's popularity in a meaningful way. It's an example and a participatory access point. The above group grows my the hundreds and thousands as I type this (literally, it's at 576,132 members as of 6:14pm Eastern) and is among the fastest growing groups on the second largest social network in the world, FaceBook.

Unless I've missed some technicality, I believe the link is appropriate and relevant. Please explain to me what I am missing.

Thank you for protecting Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasGHenry (talk • contribs) 22:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly a good indicator, though. How many of those people are not of legal age to vote? How many aren't even American? Half a million isn't even worth talking about in regards to a country with a population of 300 million. Half a million is what, a twentieth the population of New York? That's like... not even half of the Bronx. Now, if you could show support for Colbert in the 30+ age bracket, I'd be impressed. Facebook is mostly teenagers and 20-somethings. I know; I'm one of them. Howa0082 22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
As someone in the 30+ age bracket, I'd like to add that I'm not only on Facebook (and easy to find if you're interested), I'm also in this particular group. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was aiming for 40+, not 30+. Regardless, I want to see old rich white men putting their support behind Colbert. Dave Lesar, I'm looking at YOU. Howa0082 01:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a member, I'm not even American. However, the link fails under WP:EL, so... sorry. mattbuck 07:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Btw, it has already passed the 1,000,000 mark—faster than any other group on Facebook ever has. If not already notable, I believe this will become notable by Monday. (I'm assuming Colbert will mention it on his show.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I added a line or two about the group, but linking to it fails WP:EL. The group itself is notable since it's been mentioned in several media (see citations). mattbuck 14:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added a section and given both the New York Times and BBC News as references. I do believe it's significant, as it also sets a record for the fastest growing Facebook group in history. Whisperwolf 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this fails the external link policy, as this is like any other links to references that have barriers to entry (ie Jane's Defense Weekly, Stratfor, etc). Just make sure to link to it as an incline citation not in a list at the end. Joshdboz 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Polling data

If someone wanted to integrate this new polling data into the main article, that would be great (and yes I know I could add it, but I haven't the time to do it properly).--152.2.62.27 18:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. Colbert could supposedly do as well or better than Ross Perot without a single infomercial. Unless you count his show, of course. Ombudstheman 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 16 or 17?

The first sentence has 17, the rest of the article 16. You know, that's kind of an important detail. Brianrein 02:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrected the first instance to 16, as its supporting cite would suggest. You can understand the confusion, though, what with the timing so close to midnight EST. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Edwards

In the article John Edwards is listed as a native of South Carolina, however Edwards is a native of NORTH Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.168.202 (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

John Edwards was born in South Carolina, although he represents North Carolina. (Therefore, he is a native of South Carolina.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Colbert now officially not running for the Republican primary?

An anon IP just changed the sentence saying Colbert is running as both a Republican and a Democrat to say that he is only a Democrat. I was about to revert, but then I found this. Dunno how reliable that is... I think it may be true, though. What do we think? Should it say Democrat-only now? --Jaysweet 17:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

He said he wasn't running as a Republican on the Report last night, because if he spends over $5k on his campaign, he'd run into trouble from the FEC. mattbuck 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Last night's episode is still on my DVR ;)
If he made the Democratic filing fee by noon today (that was the deadline), that should definitely be added to the article. However, the only source I can find so far that says he paid the filing fee is the ballot-access.org site that I linked to above, but it appears to me that might be a blog and therefore not a reliable source. Any opinions on that? --Jaysweet 17:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, nevermind, after a more careful reading, the ballot-access.org link only states that Colbert "says" he will pay the fee, not that he actually has. So I guess we'll have to wait until tonight's Report to find out for sure. Cheers!--Jaysweet 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article needs a lot of cleanup because there are passages in future or present tense which now need to be changed to past tense. Note I am not saying the campaign is necessarily over, but phrases like "Colbert is seeking to be listed on the South Carolina Democratic Party ballot" are clearly false now. I did a bunch of cleanup already, but unfortunately my company thinks everyone should be certified for Six Sigma and I have to go take an oral exam in a few minutes. Wish me luck! In any case, this article needs some major overhaul and rewrite. Please, be bold, folks. --Jaysweet 16:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] $5,000

I remember him saying on his show that FEC rules would not kick in unless he spent over $5,000. I've added that info to the part in the top, but perhaps it should be moved to the legality section and properly sourced. Cylonian 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews

For some reason, there were multiple Wikinews boxes with identical stories linked to in them. I removed them.--Jedravent (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is he

is he ruuning 4 president yes or no --124.150.2.81 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

no Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct. (Pass...but...)

Suggestion: some paragraphs are choppy. Can they be merged or combined?

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. (FAIL)

Article title is not bolded, the lead needs to summarize the whole article, references need cleanup

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout (PASS) (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. (Pass...but...)

I think you need a source for the "running mates" sentence, and some material in the "Facebook popularity" section.

(c) contains no original research. (Pass...but...)

See above.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic (PASS) (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style). (Pass...but...)

Why is the paragraph about the college mock election in there?

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. (PASS)

5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold. (PASS)

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.

(a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. (FAIL)

Image:Colbert Cuts Stewart Out.jpg has no fair use rationale.

(b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions. (PASS)

Overall: FAIL

The fixes are minor, and if you remedy them and send me a note I'll promote this. --Haemo (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Colbert Campaign.svg

Just a question, but since when did Colbert have a campaign logo? And if he ever did, since when has it been this? -mattbuck (Talk) 08:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)